1/12/15  

1  

Explaining Variance in Comprehension for

Students in a High-Poverty Setting  

 Kristin Conradi

NC State University

Steve Amendum University of Delaware

Meghan Liebfreund Towson University

p<.0001  

1/12/15  

2  

Theoretical Perspectives

Guiding Theories

Simple View of Reading

(Gough & Tunmer, 1986)

Constrained Skills Theory (Paris, 2005)

1/12/15  

3  

What Affects Comprehension?

Decoding  

Automa8city   Expressive  Language   Recep8ve  

Language  

What about non-cognitive factors?

(Anmarkrud & Bråten, 2009; Conlon, Zimmer-Gembeck, Creed, & Tucker, 2006; Katzir, Leseaux, & Kim, 2009; Retelsdorf, Köller, & Möller, 2010)

Motivational Variables  

Comprehension

1/12/15  

4  

Other Issues

Decoding  

Measures matter! Cutting & Scarborough, 2006 Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008    

Research Questions

①  For students in a high-poverty elementary school, to what extent do selected factors (fluency, semantic knowledge, reading self-concept, and spelling) relate to reading comprehension?

②  How do the influences of these factors on reading comprehension vary depending on the comprehension measure used?

1/12/15  

5  

Participants

•  N = 59 •  All 2nd-5th grade in one charter school

(100% FRPL) in an urban area in a Southeastern state

•  In 2012-2013, 11.4% of students in 3rd-5th passed the state reading test.

Measures Norm-Referenced

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2012)

Test of Language Development (TOLD I:4; Hammill & Newcomer, 2008) Semantics

Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-5; Wiederholt & Bryant, 2012)

Gray Silent Reading Test (Wiederholt & Blalock, 2000)

Classroom Elementary Spelling Inventory (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2011)

Reading Self-Concept Scale (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995)

1/12/15  

6  

TOWRE-2

Sight Word Efficiency

Phonemic Decoding Efficiency

TOLD I:4 [Semantics]

• Nine pages, each with six pictures • “Point to the playful primate”

Picture Vocabulary

• Students are given three related terms and asked to provide category

• “perch, bass, trout”

Relational Vocabulary

• The administrator reads 15 words—each with multiple meanings. Student must provide as many possible meanings as they can.

• “sent/scent”

Multiple Meanings

1/12/15  

7  

Comprehension Measures

Gray Silent Reading Test

Series of passages; read silently

5 comprehension questions (multiple choice)

Standard score was calculated for each student: Silent Reading

Comprehension

Gray Oral Reading Test

Series of passages; read orally

5 comprehension questions (open-ended)

Two variables computed: Oral Reading Comprehension and

Fluency

Elementary Spelling Inventory (ESI)

We looked at the child’s total score. This involved adding words spelled correctly (up to 25) and number of feature points (up to 62). marched

marcht

1/12/15  

8  

Reading Self-Concept Scale

Attitude

Competence

Difficulty

Procedure

• RSCS • GSRT • ESI

Group Administered

Measures

• TOLD • GORT • TOWRE

Individual Measures

1/12/15  

9  

Analysis

•  TOWRE*, TOLD, ESI, RSCS •  Two regressions: how did the factors

relate to GSRT and GORT, respectively?

•  TOWRE and GORT fluency correlation was .91

Results

1/12/15  

10  

Results

Discussion •  Differences in what mattered based on which

test was given (and these measures were weakly related)

•  Reading Self-Concept Scale did not matter; runs counter to previous work where it correlated with comprehension at between r= .47 and .60 (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995)

•  Less variance explained than previous research (e.g., Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2010; Oulette & Beers, 2010)

1/12/15  

11  

Limitations

•  We collapsed students into one group despite developmental differences

•  Our small sample size also limited the number of variables we could enter into the regression

•  Limited resources (no context of instruction, school)

Future Research

•  Considering context; descriptive research

•  Consider other measures: add a more sensitive vocabulary measure or enter each TOLD subtest separately;

•  Consider processes; verbal protocols